File talk:No image yet.jpg
I prefer not to have a big image telling me that there's an image missing - instead, the simple text message that appears when linking to a nonexisting image file is enough (and less distractive) in my opinion. -- Cid Highwind 08:46, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC) :Agreed. This is unnecessary and distracting. --Broik 09:19, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::Agree in reference to this image. A more understated icon or logo might be called for. Memory Alpha/de and Wikipedia both use these more that we do here at MA/en -- for example, look at the German stubs. I myself would probably nominate a more uniform and iconic system (perhaps variations on the MA logo for maintenance page icons or templates, instead of stock Star Trek art like the Academy logo they used. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk ::BTW, i can't take credit for the "no image yet" idea -- it was here when i rgistered, so somebody ahead of me decided to and add the links to one central unnamed image -- its seems like a wikipedia kind of idea. but thank you for noticing i have tried to put it into use. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk :::Perhaps an adaption of the MA logo... I might have something that we could use, but I don't know if its good enough. All I did was take the MA logo, make it slightly bigger then put a flash of text in the middle of it saying "No Image Yet". Zsingaya ''Talk'' 16:33, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::::I like the idea of a variation on the MA logo, as long as the image is a lot smaller than this... whatever you do, though, please do it soon, as the image, as it is, is highly annoying. --From Andoria with Love 19:08, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC) :"File:No image yet.jpg" :::I'm not sure if this is any better... but its a step in the right direction, I think. Zsingaya ''Talk'' 19:40, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::::It's good enough for me. Good job! :) Would anyone be against me deleting the old image and moving the new one in its place? --From Andoria with Love 19:47, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::Wahoo! Its amazing what you can do with a little bit of Corel Draw... thanks for the support, Shran. Zsingaya ''Talk'' 19:49, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC) Nothing personal, but I absolutely don't like this either. We should look at it from the perspective of a reader not an editor. If we just use the image link as it was (without any file uploaded), it appears as a small text that simply reads: "Missing image". This is not distracting for readers, and it is more than enough for editors (because those use the link list and don't go hunting for appearances of some special image). -- Cid Highwind 19:59, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::::I like zsingaya's design, although I guess from the POV of a complete stranger it might be distracting. I don't think it matters much one way or the other really whether it's zsingaya's pic or just text; in any case, they get the idea. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:09, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::::Aww! Well, I like Zsingaya's design as well, but I can see Cid's point. I suppose having just the text should be enough and would not be quite as distracting. Eh, whatever you guys decide, I'll go along with it. Maybe. ;) --From Andoria with Love 20:26, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC) I think we should focus on replacing this with actual images instead of debating what if any image to use. But I do prefer it with. --Schrei 20:43, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC) For what it's worth, the text that gets included for missing images is defined her: MediaWiki:Missingimage. Maybe we can do something with it, for example add a maintenance category to it, or if really necessary and wanted, a smaller image. That way, all links to nonexisting images would be caught, not just "No_image_yet.jpg". In any case, it should better be unobtrusive-- Cid Highwind 14:36, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC) Why? With the above discussion of the image itself, I came to wonder why this page is even here. It makes it obvious where we have a page that lacks an image, but I think there's a better way. It would be a long process, but we should go through all of the pages that link here, figure out exactly what image is needed, take out the "No image yet" thing, and put a request for that image up on the Image Request page. Eventually, the image will arrive and will go on the page. If we do that, we would have to make the request page more prominent, so that more casual users could still contribute. To me, it makes no sense to point out on the articles "Hey! There's no image here! Look at what we don't have!" It also makes no sense to have 2 completely separate procedures for new images. It makes more sense to unify them into the more official request page. Comments? -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 21:13, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC) :You make a very valid point, Platypus Man, and you're right, that list will be very long by the end of it. Perhaps we could have another line on the recent changes page, like what was done with the stubs. Zsingaya ''Talk'' 21:45, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::That's right, this isn't really necessary. Nearly all of the linked pages seem to be novels, so the requested pics are book covers. They should be listed at Memory Alpha:Requested pictures, and all the links to this image should be removed, if a page has no cover pic everyone can see that, it doesn't need an extra link (or anything else) for this. --Memory 22:04, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::I think it is a good feature to have if an image is "requested", for example if we have a template that includes an image. Instead of leaving that field of the template blank (which would produce something ugly like } in the resulting table, we could link to a nonexisting image, which would then at least produce some standard text. You're right, though, it should not be used outside of such templates. -- Cid Highwind 13:38, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::::There is a difference between the two lists is that the requested pictures lists is for users who are actively working on articles, and wish to involve themselves with the community in searching for the images. ::::The "No image yet" list has a huge advantage -- it is automatic -- a user can request the image passively by adding the tag, and not have to return to it. ::::I'm not saying its good to disinvolve yourself from discussion/requests/etc., but its good to have a less time consuming option for tagging an article that we know will require a picture, but don't have the time or willpower to request it (basically, RP is for "high-priority" requests, and NIY will be for lower-priority requests. ::::As for crediting me with the idea, the link for NIY was actually added to RP when that page was first created by Minutiae Man in late 2003 -- before i came onto the scene. So NIY has existed as long as RP has. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk Comparison Regardless of the image that is now in use (which I still think has a bad quality), do you really prefer it with? -- Cid Highwind 13:41, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC) :I just uploaded this quickie image because the larger white background image someone added there was kind of distracting. I also think there are advantages to going with "no picture", even though an icon system is a "catchy" idea. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:39, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC) What about this? I added the icon to the mediawiki message this time, so that we have both a small image and the "missing image" text (Image link: File:ma_attention.png. What do you think? -- Cid Highwind 15:11, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC) :I think this is a great idea -- exactly what the people who initiated the test images were looking for, IMO -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk Cool, I guess we can all live with that, then? On a related note, I just tried to add a category to the mediawiki message (to collect all pages containing missing images), but that doesn't work. So, even though this icon now appears on all defective image links, we should still use links to this page only. -- Cid Highwind 15:32, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC) New issues This image is missing... :Apparently, with Mediawiki 1.5, we no longer get the content of Mediawiki:Missingimage (which includes the icon), but a simple text link to whatever missing image is included (see the link at the beginning of this section vs. the image link in the source). If we can't work around that, I guess we'll have to remove those links now... -- Cid Highwind 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)